🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.